Better-balanced-pair inequality conjecture for the cd-index
Better-balanced-pair inequality conjecture for the cd-index
Let and be pairs of non-negative integers, where is strictly better balanced than , meaning that the first pair is strictly closer to balance than the second in the sense used in the paper. Let , , and be lists. Better-balanced-pair inequality conjecture. Then
This extends the preceding pairwise comparison to arbitrary lists inserted between and around the two entries; the source gives no resolution.
Progress summary
The conjecture remains open: its original partial results are known, but no verified proof or counterexample has appeared in the retrieved literature.
Mahajan formulated this -analogue of Gessel’s balance conjecture in his study of Boolean-lattice -coefficients. The arbitrary-list inequality is recorded as Conjecture 4, with only partial theorems reported.
Known results
- Mahajan (2002): established partial balance inequalities in Theorems 4 and 5.
- Mahajan (2002): proved related reverse-unimodality inequalities and characterized the maximum coefficient in each degree.
- Ehrenborg and Readdy survey (2019): summarizes these results but reports no resolution of the arbitrary-list conjecture.
Current status (as of August 2026): The conjecture remains unsettled; the literature records Mahajan’s partial results, but no verified proof or disproof of the stated arbitrary-list inequality.
Sources & referencesView supporting material
Primary source
Swapneel Mahajan, “The cd-index of the Boolean lattice”, arXiv:math/0211390 (2002).
Solutions 1
Sign in to submit a solution.
The conjecture is false for -monomials of degree .
Use the list notation
and take
together with
Both pairs have sum , and
so is strictly better balanced than . The conjecture therefore predicts
The coefficients can be computed directly from the established Lemmas 3.2 and 4.4 of the source. For every nonempty list , these give
with initial condition . Every list on the right has degree one less than , where
so (2) is a finite exact integer recursion.
Evaluating (2) gives
whereas
Thus
which is the opposite of (1).
As an independent coefficient recurrence, Proposition 2 gives
with a derivation. Therefore and
This separate recursion yields the same two values. Hence the more balanced pair gives a strictly smaller Boolean-lattice -coefficient, disproving the conjecture.